Suijuris Forums - View Single Post

goldphoenix · #3 03-25-2004, 09:50 AM

Hello Sui Juris,

Thank you for your reply to my post!

My reply to&him was this: (and please forgive me if I come across as argumentative. I found his reply to be a bit nasty. Though I may have wrongly been reading into it. I really need to get away from arguing. Believe it or not, I did attempt to refrain from argument, and&I admit his response threw me a bit which might be apparent by my email response to him. Was this response of mine a poor one?)

Hello Rod, Thank you for your reply. I sent you an email either the end of last week or the beginning of this week. I also called your office and you were in a meeting with general counsel. I never suggested that you have already taken a stance. Without knowing who I am, please explain to me how you can know what I am entitled to and what I am not? When I was terminated from your company for not providing something which I do not have, at that point I became entitled to what is lawfully mine which is my right to work, which your company denied me by discriminating against my position. Please look up the following case which upholds my position: In 1992, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) filed an action in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (CA3-92-0169-T) against Information Systems Consulting (I.S.C.) for firing Bruce Hanson (an employee) on 8-15-89 solely because he would not provide the company with a SSN that he did not have due to his religious beliefs.

This case was upheld in a case against Taco Bell. The man discriminated against walked away with a $10,000 settlement. If you have time, stop by a Taco Bell and take a look at their application. Please look for where a worker is to put his social security number on the employment application. As far as my being disingenuous, please note the following: The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people are unsure of its proper meaning. Generally, it means "insincere" and often seems to be a synonym of cynical or calculating. Not surprisingly, the word is used often in political contexts, as in It is both insensitive and disingenuous for the White House to describe its aid package and the proposal to eliminate the federal payment as "tough love." This use of the word is accepted by 94 percent of the Usage Panel. Most Panelists also accept the extended meaning relating to less reproachable behavior. Fully 88 percent accept disingenuous with the meaning "playfully insincere, faux-naïf," as in the example "I don't have a clue about late Beethoven!" he said. The remark seemed disingenuous, coming from one of the world's foremost concert pianists. Sometimes disingenuous is used as a synonym for naive, as if the dis- prefix functioned as an intensive (as it does in certain words like disannul) rather than as a negative element. This usage does not find much admiration among Panelists, however. Seventy-five percent do not accept it in the phrase a disingenuous tourist who falls prey to stereotypical con artists. 

I reassure you that my right to privacy is not a disingenuous one. Despite that right, guaranteed by the Privacy Act, and upheld by law, I have indeed shared my situation in previous emails with your human resources department, who then referred me to you. My desire to discuss the issue openly with you, and my efforts to contact you via phone and email (the latter of which explained what questions I was seeking answers to) do not fall into the above category of intent. If you feel that my coming to you to resolve a situation in which I have been discriminated against by your company is a waste of my time, please explain to me why that is. Now that you know more, you can rest assured that I am not attempting to discuss abstract points of law. Are you telling me that you would rather me sue you than have me as a worker in one of your franchises? That would be presuming that I have no worth within your company. I do not need to go through the EEOC in order to file a complaint with a court of law. Please allow me to explain that I am not an enemy to your company. I am coming to you in good faith for a joint resolution to our situation. Again, I appreciate your response. And I await your response to my correspondence. Your lack of reply will be considered as tacit admission that the above case cited applies in this particular situation. All of my best to you and yours! I pray that your company will continue to prosper. paul